4 ms·

Many people don't have good access to clean water, over 2B according to the repo's readme. Those people probably cannot afford $150, but the goal of the projec

Many people don't have good access to clean water, over 2B according to the repo's readme. Those people probably cannot afford $150, but the goal of the project wasn't $150, it was lower. The unit is supposed to be solar powered, so access to electricity isn't strictly necessary, in the sense of being able to connect to the grid. They just need sunlight. There is a sweet spot of cost, where those who need it can't afford it, but nonprofits, billionaire philanthropists, and local governments can afford to purchase and distribute such devices where necessary. In cases where the need for clean water greatly outweighs the supply, such entities see a good return on investment, simply by improving the health of those people there. Furthermore, X is a moonshot program at Google. They attempt solutions for big problems with high likeihood of failure. Are you suggesting they shouldn't do this with their money printing ad machine? It seems like any good that comes out of that company should be celebrated, and in this case they are sharing a bunch of work on solving what will be an increasing large problem for the entire world.

blacksqr 5y ago
Did you look at the presentation deck in the linked repository? It clearly says "$150 target price point" It also clearly shows an electric circulating fan in the diagrams.
- bun_at_work 5y ago
  > Data and geospatial tools around access to safe drinking water are provided here to aid academic reproducibility and advancement in the context of the Nature Paper “Global Potential of Harvesting Drinking Water from Air using Solar Energy”. Again from the readme. You're correct that the slide deck mentions a $150 price point. The readme mentions cheap as less than 5% of total income. If we assume the poorest people in the world, who walk miles each day to access water, then we are talking about income levels of ~$365-$730 a year. 5% of that is less than $150. All of my points still stand. Project X at Google set out to solve one of the very hard problems in the world, and made their findings and work available to the public for free. It's clearly not supposed to be something going to market, so asking who will buy it that needs fresh water is obtuse, IMO.
jeffbee 5y ago
I don’t see how it can be that billions of people lack clean water. It must be plentiful enough and clean enough for the billions of people to exist. If it wasn’t they wouldn’t.
- bun_at_work 5y ago
  First, let me say the number comes from the readme presented, not my own research or claims. Second, the claim that the water isn't clean enough for drinking should be qualified. You can drink it and survive, hopefully. But bacteria exist in these water sources that give people dysentery or other illnesses from which they die. In underdeveloped parts of the world there are poor mortality rates. Humanitarian goals seek to improve those mortality rates, and providing clean(er) water is one way to do that. Don't take my word for it though. Factfulness is a great book by Hans Rosling that discusses how the poorest people in the world live and some efforts to improve those lives, even if that's not the main focus of the book (it was the main focus of Rosling's career, iirc). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    I think I see what you are saying, and I haven't read the book or anything on this topic. I can absolutely imagine how people would have better lives with more and cleaner water. But billions of people is an extraordinary equilibrium population already, and it makes me wonder if access to water will improve the lives in question, or raise the equilibrium population to a higher level at the same amount of misery and suffering.
    - jimmydorry 5y ago
      At a high level, considering the population growth rates of developed nations, almost all of them are in decline. One could posit that at some point of improvement in life for a given population, the growth rate will plateu and then begin to fall, rather than increase in perpetuity. Looking closer at the developed nations that still have increasing population growth reveals a significant portion of it coming from immigration. There is some pretty good data to peruse (particularly the aggregates at the bottom of the page) here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?most_recent...

blacksqr 5y ago

Did you look at the presentation deck in the linked repository? It clearly says "$150 target price point" It also clearly shows an electric circulating fan in the diagrams.

bun_at_work 5y ago
> Data and geospatial tools around access to safe drinking water are provided here to aid academic reproducibility and advancement in the context of the Nature Paper “Global Potential of Harvesting Drinking Water from Air using Solar Energy”. Again from the readme. You're correct that the slide deck mentions a $150 price point. The readme mentions cheap as less than 5% of total income. If we assume the poorest people in the world, who walk miles each day to access water, then we are talking about income levels of ~$365-$730 a year. 5% of that is less than $150. All of my points still stand. Project X at Google set out to solve one of the very hard problems in the world, and made their findings and work available to the public for free. It's clearly not supposed to be something going to market, so asking who will buy it that needs fresh water is obtuse, IMO.

jeffbee 5y ago

I don’t see how it can be that billions of people lack clean water. It must be plentiful enough and clean enough for the billions of people to exist. If it wasn’t they wouldn’t.

bun_at_work 5y ago
First, let me say the number comes from the readme presented, not my own research or claims. Second, the claim that the water isn't clean enough for drinking should be qualified. You can drink it and survive, hopefully. But bacteria exist in these water sources that give people dysentery or other illnesses from which they die. In underdeveloped parts of the world there are poor mortality rates. Humanitarian goals seek to improve those mortality rates, and providing clean(er) water is one way to do that. Don't take my word for it though. Factfulness is a great book by Hans Rosling that discusses how the poorest people in the world live and some efforts to improve those lives, even if that's not the main focus of the book (it was the main focus of Rosling's career, iirc). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness
- jeffbee 5y ago
  I think I see what you are saying, and I haven't read the book or anything on this topic. I can absolutely imagine how people would have better lives with more and cleaner water. But billions of people is an extraordinary equilibrium population already, and it makes me wonder if access to water will improve the lives in question, or raise the equilibrium population to a higher level at the same amount of misery and suffering.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    At a high level, considering the population growth rates of developed nations, almost all of them are in decline. One could posit that at some point of improvement in life for a given population, the growth rate will plateu and then begin to fall, rather than increase in perpetuity. Looking closer at the developed nations that still have increasing population growth reveals a significant portion of it coming from immigration. There is some pretty good data to peruse (particularly the aggregates at the bottom of the page) here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?most_recent...